Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Philothei]

1. Quote me where I said that. At all.


2. Let's say one had all kinds of implications concerning life on other planets. It would ALL depend - solely - on there BEING life on other planets. Thus, while the proposition of "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that There Is Life On Other Plants" may have implications flowing from that, it's all irrelevant apart from the propostion upon which it stems. The desire to discuss "implications" apart from the the proposition from which it stems is both impossible and, well, silly. We need to establish the proposition first.


3. Please remember the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about various implications of virginity, I suggest you start a thread on that. This thread is about a specific VOW of Mary to God, the specific CONTENT thereof, and the proposition that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

The Ever virginity is about the incarnation not about life in other planets. Whatever has to do with God there is a high probability of "mystery" involved. As much as the Trinity as dogma is a mystery...how it is unity and "μονας" in three persons the same is the mystery of Christ's incarnation. How could the divine be containted in one person of Christ? How can a birth of such a "being" be possible? So the womb that contained Him indeed was left empty... The Theotokos knew no husband as nothing about her marriage was "legal" in any respect... She according to the Jewish law was carrying an "illegal" son who was not of Joseph. Her husband did not have to have more children from her as the "union" was broken between them cause God did it not Mary not him...But God. Now if you deny the Tradition that from the beginning explains that I am afraid that there is no other way to explain the Ever Virginity of Mary.

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)
Jerome's explanation : Christ had cousins

Athanasius


"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Mary: Ever Virgin

How did the Church Fathers explain the perpetual virginity of Mary? - YouTube

Now, what this means is that if a young Jewish woman--say, Mary, in this instance--took a vow of sexual abstinence, and her legal husband--in our case, Joseph--heard of the vow and said nothing, then the vow stands, and she is bound to keep it. This provides a solid historical basis for Joseph and Mary having a perpetually virginal marriage: indeed, Numbers is very explicit in the final verse that if the husband changes his mind "and makes them null and void after he has heard of them," the the sin will be upon him: "he shall bear her iniquity" (Num 30:15). One can easily imagine a situation where some husbands would think better of deciding to accept such a vow! But as Matthew's Gospel tells us: Joseph was a "righteous man" (Matt 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence--and her words "How can this be, since I know not man?" in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34)--and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin.

This reasoning to me makes sense as far as her vow... Mary knew how babies come about and it makes no sense also why she would ask "for I know no man" ...since she was about to be married. Her vow was the obstacle of her believing the Angel as to what she replied. For if she was to have normal intercourse with her husband to be...then she would not 'wonder" how she would concieve.

Makes sense...
The Sacred Page: A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. Quote me where I said that. At all.


2. Let's say one had all kinds of implications concerning life on other planets. It would ALL depend - solely - on there BEING life on other planets. Thus, while the proposition of "It is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that There Is Life On Other Plants" may have implications flowing from that, it's all irrelevant apart from the propostion upon which it stems. The desire to discuss "implications" apart from the the proposition from which it stems is both impossible and, well, silly. We need to establish the proposition first.


3. Please remember the topic of this thread. If you want to talk about various implications of virginity, I suggest you start a thread on that. This thread is about a specific VOW of Mary to God, the specific CONTENT thereof, and the proposition that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER.



.

The Ever virginity is about the incarnation

1. No. It's about the sex life of Mary after Jesus was born. It's entirely about AFTER the Incarnation (and Nativity) occured.


2. You seem to have entirely and completely missed the point. It was stated that we should be discussing the "other" aspects of this Dogma rather than the dogma - that Mary Had No Sex Ever. I disagreed. We need to establish the point as true before we can discuss the "implications" you may or may not have stemming from this truth. I disagree with you that it is best to skip the issue of truth to the proposition and instead discuss the implications of it IF it is true.

Now if you deny the Tradition that from the beginning

As you well know, I'm not denying anything. No denomination is. It's just that there are two denominations (out of the 50,000+ some Catholics insist exists) that proclaim in the most powerful way possible that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Has No Sex Ever. We're waiting for the substantiation of this to the level claimed.

Mary knew how babies come about and it makes no sense also why she would ask "for I know no man" ...since she was about to be married.

You are ASSUMING that She was wrong, incorrect. That She thought the Incarnation would happen in the distant future - months or years in the future. Why do you ASSUME that? Wouldn't Her use of the PRESENT ACTIVE at least suggest She might have been correct and understood the Incarnation was immediate, in the present, as ancient Tradition teaches?







.

 

[Thekla]

The Incarnation is not an isolated event, but has an ongoing effect.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

California Josiah doesn't engage or respond to scriptural evidence.

Of course, to date, nothing from Scripture has been presented that indicates that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary made a specific vow to God, the content of said vow, and that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Neither you or others have presenting ANYTHING in Scripture that even MENTIONS a vow, the content thereof, or anything that says anything about Mary's sex life up to and including the moment of Her death (or was it undeath?). I think you know that. Saying I'm "not engaging" in it when you know nothing has been present to be engaged in is...well, you know.

changes direction, introduces something new,

That HAS been frustrating. There's a very, very clear focus here - none of which members of the two denominations supporting this want to confirm as true (certainly not to the level claimed): That Mary made a specific vow to God, the specific content of said vow, and that Mary Had No Sex EVER. There seems to rather be an enormous desire to discuss everything BUT the issue before us. This constant evasion of the topic might suggest they have nothing to support it? Or because they find the topic unseemly? I don't know, only that they seem profoundly evasive of the issue - constantly changing the topic. IF it's SO certain (the highest certainty of Truth) and IF it's SO important (the most important to all), IF it's a dogmatic fact - odd folks seem so very, very, very hesitant to present the confirming data. Or even discuss it.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CalifornianJosiah, the problem is that posters here HAVE, on MULTIPLE occassions addressed the vow issue. They offered Holy Tradition and the Protoevangelium of James as the "evidence" you asked for.

1. I've agreed that those who say it's true, say it's true. The LDS that say Joseph Smith found those plates say he found those plates, is that confirmation to you to the highest possible level that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that he did? And it is noted that these men who proclaim this did so CENTURIES after Mary died, offering NOTHING to support it as true, and had no way to know this tidbit of bedroom information.


2. You have no quoted from this REJECTED, false, nonauthoritative book. I know why. It never says that Mary Had No Sex Ever. You did not present it as evidence of the dogmatic fact of Mary Had No Sex Ever, I'm sure because you realize it never says that - and it would be pretty irrelevant if it did since it's a false, rejected, nonauthoritative book.

if it has been established that Mary remained a virgin, then

Yes, then it would be true. IF you could establish that there are 6 billion furry brown critters living on the Moon of Endor, then it would be true. But it's all irrelevant unless and until you confirm the conditional clause as true.

Therefore, providing evidence that Mary remained a virgin is a key piece of evidence in this discussion of the thread topic.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm waiting.









.

 

[washedagain]

Of course, to date, nothing from Scripture has been presented that indicates that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary made a specific vow to God, the content of said vow, and that Mary Had No Sex Ever. Neither you or others have presenting ANYTHING in Scripture that even MENTIONS a vow, the content thereof, or anything that says anything about Mary's sex life up to and including the moment of Her death (or was it undeath?). I think you know that. Saying I'm "not engaging" in it when you know nothing has been present to be engaged in is...well, you know.








That HAS been frustrating. There's a very, very clear focus here - none of which members of the two denominations supporting this want to confirm as true (certainly not to the level claimed): That Mary made a specific vow to God, the specific content of said vow, and that Mary Had No Sex EVER. There seems to rather be an enormous desire to discuss everything BUT the issue before us. This constant evasion of the topic might suggest they have nothing to support it? Or because they find the topic unseemly? I don't know, only that they seem profoundly evasive of the issue - constantly changing the topic. IF it's SO certain (the highest certainty of Truth) and IF it's SO important (the most important to all), IF it's a dogmatic fact - odd folks seem so very, very, very hesitant to present the confirming data. Or even discuss it.


[/size]




.

So far, the only confirming date (which has absolutely NO confirmation of said vow or ever virginity) is


31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”





From this scripture they can clearly see (must need some really cool glasses is all I can guess) that Mary had made a vow to God prior to this visit.


Just for grins... I asked my 18 year old daughter yesterday.


ME: "You are going to have a baby!"


She looked at me like I had three eyes and declared...


Daughter: "What the heck???????? I have NOT had sex!"


She was even offended that I said such a thing as she takes her virginity very seriously. The only vow that she has made is to stay chaste till marriage... as I am sure Mary did the same, being a good Jewish girl, but the TRUTH is... we don't even know if Mary made even that vow(staying chaste till marriage). Just that she had not been with a man YET. That is why she answers in the present tense... not future...

If she were speaking of the present and future, for all time, her answer should have been...

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I have given a vow of ever virginity?”

Or

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I will never know a man?”





Of course, she knows that someday she will get married and have sex and God willing, children.

 

[Thekla]

So far, the only confirming date (which has absolutely NO confirmation of said vow or ever virginity) is


31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”





From this scripture they can clearly see (must need some really cool glasses is all I can guess) that Mary had made a vow to God prior to this visit.


Just for grins... I asked my 18 year old daughter yesterday.


ME: "You are going to have a baby!"


She looked at me like I had three eyes and declared...


Daughter: "What the heck???????? I have NOT had sex!"


She was even offended that I said such a thing as she takes her virginity very seriously.



Of course, she knows that someday she will get married and have sex and God willing, children.

The difference is that she is not betrothed, and uses an English tense that does not cover the same conceptual ground (in the Greek it is an ongoing ground which denotes an ongoing state of being). Mary's response applies to past, present, future.

Additionally, the context underlying the announcement is the facts re: promised births of the Old Testament.
Compare the average length of time from announcement to conception.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Compare the average length of time from announcement to conception.

1. How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever, that at the moment of Her death (or undeath, what is the EO denomination's view on that?) that She was a virgin?


2. I'm curious. Does the EO denomination reject the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened TOGETHER, on the same day? IF so, why do you reject that tradition but not a much later tradition that She died (or didn't) as one who had never had sex?


3. Where is your confirmation that the Incarnation of Our Lord happened years after the Annunication (similar to a couple of OT examples but rejecting ancient Christian Tradition) and that Mary correctly ASSUMED that would be the case here?


4. How does the reality that Sarah conceived a son some years after the promise that she would indicate that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? That Mary made a specific vow to God and the specific content of said vow was that She'd have no sex ever - ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that she did not?







.

 

[Thekla]

1. How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever, that at the moment of Her death (or undeath, what is the EO denomination's view on that?) that She was a virgin?

The response was directed to an area of inquiry/observation within the discussion, which as a component has a bearing on the subject at large.

2. I'm curious. Does the EO denomination reject the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened TOGETHER, on the same day? IF so, why do you reject that tradition but not a much later tradition that She died (or didn't) as one who had never had sex?

The timing of the conception is not indicated by Gabriel, but is announced to occur in the future.

3. Where is your confirmation that the Incarnation of Our Lord happened years after the Annunication (similar to a couple of OT examples) and that Mary correctly ASSUMED that would be the case here?

As before, the dialogue recorded in Luke is a real time successive revealing of information and response followed by information.

The subtextual ground is the basis for the understanding of the text - here (the NT) the subtext is in part the historic Jewish experience (recorded in the OT).

4. How does the reality that Sarah conceived a son some years after the promise that she would indicate that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? That Mary made a specific vow to God and the specific content of said vow was that She'd have no sex ever - ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that she did not?

See above.

 

[washedagain]

The difference is that she is not betrothed, and uses an English tense that does not cover the same conceptual ground (in the Greek it is an ongoing ground which denotes an ongoing state of being). Mary's response applies to past, present, future.

Additionally, the context underlying the announcement is the facts re: promised births of the Old Testament.
Compare the average length of time from announcement to conception.

How does being betrothed change anything... if my daughter were engaged, she still would have had the same response! She has not had sex YET (present tense)

By the way, I edited my post while you were responding... please go back and read the full post.

 

[Thekla]

How does being betrothed change anything... if my daughter were engaged, she still would have had the same response! She has not had sex YET (present tense)

By the way, I edited my post while you were responding... please go back and read the full post.

See again the conceptual ground of the Greek tense, which is actually not a time tense but a state of being (vs. aorist).

And note:

Just for grins... I asked my 18 year old daughter yesterday.


ME: "You are going to have a baby!"

Is not the same as saying "you will have a baby", clearly indicating a future event.

"You are going" indicates future but also can encompass present.

Ex. I am going to the grocery store can indicate a future plan or an in process action.

 

[washedagain]

See again the conceptual ground of the Greek tense, which is actually not a time tense but a state of being (vs. aorist).

Yes and her state of being at that moment is that she does not know a man.

 

[Thekla]

Yes and her state of being at that moment is that she does not know a man.

Not as (an aorist) simple statement of fact, but as an ongoing habitual state of being - which (per the tense) covers past present and future.

It is equivalent to saying "I am a Christian"; does one assume in this statement that in the future one will no longer be a Christian at some point in the future ?

sorry: I edited as well, if you want to look back ...)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

1. How does that confirm that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever, that at the moment of Her death (or undeath, what is the EO denomination's view on that?) that She was a virgin?


​

The response was directed to an area of inquiry/observation within the discussion, which as a component has a bearing on the subject at large.

... in other words, it doesn't. We don't seem to be making any progress, IMO because nothing has been presented to confirm this specific vow God made to Mary, the specific content of said vow or that status of Mary vis-a-vis sex at the monent of Her death (or was it undeath - what is the EO denomination's view on that?). All these irrelevant detours are frustrating.

2. I'm curious. Does the EO denomination reject the ancient Catholic Tradition that the Incarnation and the Annunciation happened TOGETHER, on the same day? IF so, why do you reject that tradition but not a much later tradition that She died (or didn't) as one who had never had sex?


​

The timing of the conception is not indicated by Gabriel, but is announced to occur in the future.

1. You didn't answer the question. Or reply to the post.


2. Yes, and as you have STRESSED, it's INDEFINITE as to that time. You've tried to suggest (with NOTHING to remotely suggest) that Mary was wrong and assumed it would be many years in the future (making ancient Tradition wrong as well), but then you've also stressed it's INDEFINITE. Prophecy is almost always given in the future tense, but it's INDEFINITE as to what future, you've stressed. Tradition could be right, Mary could have been right. How that confirms that Mary made some specific vow to God, how that confirms the specific content of said vow, how that confirms that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER is a point I'm just not following.

3. Where is your confirmation that the Incarnation of Our Lord happened years after the Annunication (similar to a couple of OT examples and contrary to Tradition) and that Mary correctly ASSUMED that would be the case here?

.

the dialogue recorded in Luke is a real time successive revealing of information and response followed by information.

.... you didn't answer the question. Or reply to what you quoted from me.

4. How does the reality that Sarah conceived a son some years after the promise that she would indicate that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER? That Mary made a specific vow to God and the specific content of said vow was that She'd have no sex ever - ergo it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that she did not?


​

.

 

[washedagain]

See again the conceptual ground of the Greek tense, which is actually not a time tense but a state of being (vs. aorist).

And note:



Is not the same as saying "you will have a baby", clearly indicating a future event.

"You are going" indicates future but also can encompass present.

Ex. I am going to the grocery store can indicate a future plan or an in process action.

I am sorry..... they both indicate present and future... but it is Mary's response that indicates HOW she received the news... just like my daughter.

Your assumption is that Mary incorrectly understood the message as in "in the future"

My assumption is that Mary understood correctly, the angel was speaking of present... before she is going to be with man. And low and behold, she got preggers on the same day/ within that 24 hour period.

Even if I had no assumption, your assumption proves nothing of her vow of perpetual virginity. It simply doesn't.

If I had gone to the doctors and he did an exam on me and declared..

"Annaclair, you WILL have a baby!" I would most certainly understand him to mean that I am with child!

 

[Thekla]

.

... in other words, it doesn't. We don't seem to be making any progress, IMO because nothing has been presented to confirm this specific vow God made to Mary, the specific content of said vow or that status of Mary vis-a-vis sex at the monent of Her death (or was it undeath - what is the EO denomination's view on that?). All these irrelevant detours are frustrating.

It is only irrelevant if one is not accustomed to investigation of particular components within the subject under consideration.

1. You didn't answer the question. Or reply to the post.

Your question was iterated within a context, so I gave a response to your question as a component.

The stand-alone answer is that the conception is thought to have happened within a very short time.

2. Yes, and as you have STRESSED, it's INDEFINITE as to that time. You've tried to suggest (with NOTHING to remotely suggest) that Mary was wrong and assumed it would be many years in the future (making ancient Tradition wrong as well), but then you've also stressed it's INDEFINITE. Prophecy is almost always given in the future tense, but it's INDEFINITE as to what future, you've stressed. Tradition could be right, Mary could have been right. How that confirms that Mary made some specific vow to God, how that confirms the specific content of said vow, how that confirms that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all and greatest certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER is a point I'm just not following.

Actually, I have taken Mary's comments as accurate.
Her comment was a response to something stated to happen in the future. Future encompasses all the future (not "now"); within the category of "all the future" is the present and ongoing until tacitly indicated marriage which is therefore also included in "all the future".

.... you didn't answer the question. Or reply to what you quoted from me.

I have never stated that the overshadowing/conception happened many years in the future. Nor does my argument rest on when in the future this happened, only that it was stated to be something that would occur in the future (which is "all the future").

 

[Thekla]

I am sorry..... they both indicate present and future... but it is Mary's response that indicates HOW she received the news... just like my daughter.

Your assumption is that Mary incorrectly understood the message as in "in the future".

She correctly understood the statement to refer to the future because Gabriel uses the future tense (you will).

My assumption is that Mary understood correctly, the angel was speaking of present... before she is going to be with man. And low and behold, she got preggers on the same day/ within that 24 hour period.

Then he would have spoken in the tense that covers "begin now and keep going" or aorist. He did not.

Even if I had no assumption, your assumption proves nothing of her vow of perpetual virginity. It simply doesn't.

I have repeatedly stated to you that I am not attempting to prove and cannot prove an iterated vow.

If I had gone to the doctors and he did an exam on me and declared..

"Annaclair, you WILL have a baby!" I would most certainly understand him to mean that I am with child!

Yes, but Gabriel says "you will conceive and bear ...".

What if the doctor said "You will conceive and bear ..." when you were not pregnant - but not sexually active and also engaged to a man?

 

[justinangel]

So far, the only confirming date (which has absolutely NO confirmation of said vow or ever virginity) is


31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”





From this scripture they can clearly see (must need some really cool glasses is all I can guess) that Mary had made a vow to God prior to this visit.


Just for grins... I asked my 18 year old daughter yesterday.


ME: "You are going to have a baby!"


She looked at me like I had three eyes and declared...


Daughter: "What the heck???????? I have NOT had sex!"


She was even offended that I said such a thing as she takes her virginity very seriously. The only vow that she has made is to stay chaste till marriage... as I am sure Mary did the same, being a good Jewish girl, but the TRUTH is... we don't even know if Mary made even that vow(staying chaste till marriage). Just that she had not been with a man YET. That is why she answers in the present tense... not future...

If she were speaking of the present and future, for all time, her answer should have been...

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I have given a vow of ever virginity?”

Or

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I will never know a man?”





Of course, she knows that someday she will get married and have sex and God willing, children.

Your daughter is offended because she understands you mean that she has already conceived outside of wedlock."You are going to have a baby." But she doesn't ask you how she will have a baby, does she?

Nice try, but no cigar.

PAX

 

[Dorothea]

CalifornianJosiah, the problem is that posters here HAVE, on MULTIPLE occassions addressed the vow issue. They offered Holy Tradition and the Protoevangelium of James as the "evidence" you asked for. In addition, offering evidence of Mary's virginity IS IN FACT the very evidence you asked for to prove there was a vow.

After all, if it has been established that Mary remained a virgin, then that would be evidence to the possibility that she was a virgin due to a vow (which is the topic of this thread). Therefore, providing evidence that Mary remained a virgin is a key piece of evidence in this discussion of the thread topic. On the other hand, if it was established that Mary did not remain a virgin, it would be evidence to the possibility that she did not take such a vow.

According to you:

This thread is about the follow topics (according to your own words)

1) Mary took a vow to remain a virgin: currently being discussed
2) It is a dogmatic fact that Mary remained a virgin: currently being discussed

People are giving you PRECISELY the evidence you have asked for. Stop dodging and stop trying to tell people "that's not what this thread is about...". You are hindering true conversation when you imply the conversation is going off course when it is - in fact - EXACTLY on course.

having been reading the excellent information given and explained, would you say Mary's question to Gabriel about knowing no man would indeed equal a vow to God to remain a virgin?

 

[Thekla]

having been reading the excellent information given and explained, would you say Mary's question to Gabriel about knowing no man would indeed equal a vow to God to remain a virgin?

It clearly shows deliberate intention, which if iterated would be a vow.